Invaders! artist provides context to controversial piece

by Justin McElroy { Aug 26th 2008 at 10:30AM }

Sometimes being the World's Most Dedicated Video Game Blog isn't easy. Like when we have to read a long, dense response from Douglas Edric Stanley, the artist who created the controversial Space Invaders/World Trade Center piece that you've been reading about all week. Oh, and it's just barely 9 a.m. Joystiq Time (and did we mention it's long?). You know what that is? Dedication.

What'd we learn from the admittedly well-reasoned response? Well, in (very) short, Stanely's piece (see the video after the break) appears to be a way for him to understand, to contextualize what happened on that September morning, attempting to find some sense in a senseless act. While we appreciate Stanley's urge to add context to the inflammatory piece, it kind of makes us sad that he had to explain it at all. And, perhaps more troubling, it doesn't really answer the big moral question: Where's the promised four-player online co-op?

Tags: leipzig-08, space-invaders, world-trade-center

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Greyseal @ Aug 26th 2008 10:37AM

If the best way you have of relating to the worst attack on American soil in history is Space Invaders, perhaps it's time to put down the controller and read a newspaper or two.

The only thing worse than hack-art is watching the hack-artist trying to retroactively justify his work. It's like watching David Blaine discuss the spiritual symbolism of his attention stunts. We don't need idiots like this helping to paint the gaming community as violence-crazed adolescents.

emirabal @ Aug 26th 2008 10:41AM

It comes down to a matter of free speech and expression, and the guys at joystiq are probably on his side. The guy was affected in a certain way and he is expressing himself about it with the only way he knows how. Its funny, this is happened with every major event in the world, and it will happen again. We just have to learn that some people have different opinions, and everyone, is entitled to their.

Greyseal @ Aug 26th 2008 10:48AM

I'm all in favor of freedom of speech, and he has the right to express himself however he wishes. Problem is, this particular piece of "art" is not intended to be a personal expression... it was intended to be a commercial stunt for the artist. It has as much depth and nuance as a Springer episode. It hasn't acheived public recognition due to its profound statement on anything... only its shock value.

Bass Masterson @ Aug 26th 2008 1:25PM

What you "it's free speech!" parrots seem to forget is that rejecting his work is free speech as well. The protection of free speech doesn't mean you say or do whatever you want and there are no repercussions. In fact, the very concept insures that everybody else's free speech will be just as valued as yours.

So, in the spirit of free speech, let me state that this guy is an opportunistic hack who is using a national and global tragedy to propel his name undeservedly into the headlines.

Wiinterfang @ Aug 26th 2008 10:41AM

This isn't offensive, for the love of god there's families playing it and having fun.

emirabal @ Aug 26th 2008 10:42AM

SuperGayParade @ Aug 26th 2008 10:43AM

I think the art is brilliant. It's everyone's war against terrorism, and as shown in the video, playing it is a relieving, joyful act. This goes toward the 1984 be the eyes and ears of the government, rat anyone out, and goes towards a lot of things. That's probably why Fox news covered it so evenly, they agree with the piece. Us vs Them, the unambiguous enemies.

Burnt Meatloaf @ Aug 27th 2008 6:36AM

I remember when an artist had painted a mural as part of an exhibition at my school, which basically had a mash of stuff all thrown in seemingly at random, ranging from decapitated deer heads to abstract shapes. I hated it. However, my art teacher thought the painting was brilliant, so she asked the artist what was the significance of the circles floating in mid-air. He then told the class, "well, I just really like circles."

My art teacher didn't like him or his art after that.

Obie @ Aug 26th 2008 10:46AM

All this "controversy" was exactly what this guy wanted, best free advertising ever.

Wiinterfang @ Aug 26th 2008 10:47AM

Well that's the point of a controversial piece of art.

Wiinterfang @ Aug 26th 2008 10:47AM

I too agreed, besides is not like the space invaders are destroying the WTC, yes people say it's distaful but so they say that about picasso,polock etc.. it's just a matter of tasted.

What's with people getting offended over anything? is this the generation of pansies?

Invisible Poster @ Aug 26th 2008 10:48AM

Why is nobody upset with Hulk Hogan? He's the real culprit.

http://blog.thetrenchcoat.com/uploads/hulkhogan911.jpg

Wiinterfang @ Aug 26th 2008 11:07AM

that was fucking funny, horrible but funny.

Duke @ Aug 26th 2008 12:29PM

OMG

antV @ Aug 26th 2008 4:35PM

so why is it cool to poke fun at the sept 11th attacks, but not make art out of it?

Shmil @ Aug 26th 2008 10:49AM

While all of you are concerned with potential terrorist attacks and Russia invading Georgia, I'm concerned with more reasonable threats.
Invaders... from space. They're coming and they want our quarters. Not slugs, not tokens. Quarters.

t_m @ Aug 26th 2008 12:00PM

better build some big buildings to hide behind then!

SpikeDelight @ Aug 26th 2008 11:09AM

Lol @ Invisible Poster

But yeah this should not get this guy in trouble. =

vizh @ Aug 26th 2008 11:15AM

I admit I didn't read his explanation of the work, but I think it's beside the point for me. It's not that it's too soon, or too insensitive... It's that it's too easy. Using something like this to provoke a reaction is the artistic inequivalent of using Hitler as an example in a debate, or having a movie's villain shoot a puppy to make sure the audience hates him.

Shmil @ Aug 26th 2008 11:26AM

or an actor playing a retarded character in a movie. I don't know much about art but to me it looks like just an uninspired heartstring puller that capitalizes on the new popularity behind video games and nerddom

Yourself @ Aug 26th 2008 11:49AM

But when his message/opinion/reaction was related to the WTC events, why should he be banned from using its image? Your analogy doesn't quite fit - his work would be like using Hitler in a debate about the Second World War, or having a villain kill a puppy in a movie about saving puppies.

LaughingTarget @ Aug 26th 2008 4:54PM

The problem is him using someone else's creation to do so. If he created it out of needlepoint, there wouldn't have been as major a reaction (he'd probably not even get noticed).

The problem is Taito sees this as a black mark on the Space Invaders brand. Not only did this "artist" (term used loosely, I still don't see how t30 seconds in what amounts to MS Paint qualifies as art, Maddox has better works on his website than this) use a copyrighted property without permission of the creator, it was used in a manner that can be construed to cast a negative light on the property.

Furthermore, it cannot be argued to be a parody, criticism or social commentary as it doesn't comment on Space Invaders; It only uses it as a medium for a completely unrelated event.

The message itself isn't the problem, it is how it is presented. If our Cali-Frenchie "artist" actually programmed a game himself depicting the WTC, the discussion wouldn't have lived past the first day. The fact this individual lacks the competence to actually program anything is the only reason why we're still hearing about the issue. Anyone else would have been long forgotten.

Fame via incompetence.

WiNG [Life in a Game] @ Aug 26th 2008 11:28AM

Most Americans forget what it was like on September eleventh, BEFORE we knew who was responsible.

At that time it was a senseless, faceless attack. Nobody know how or why or who was to blame. There was a huge impetus to name the culprit(s).

This piece captures in some way that feeling. If you think it is just a way to get attention, you forget that art exists for getting attention. Otherwise, why create it?

J @ Aug 26th 2008 11:34AM

Well, I don't live in New York, but I just found out that the guy who owned my house... and "coincidentally" has my same name... died at the Pentagon on 9/11 (no, really) so I am fully qualified to comment on this...

But, I'm not gonna!

animeman_59 @ Aug 26th 2008 4:04PM

This "art" is nothing but Bu!!sh!t.
There's a reason why certain artists starve.

Thankfully, this will be the last time that we ever hear from this no-class, pretentious bastard. Unless he figures he finally found an audience to piss off (i.e. us).

antV @ Aug 26th 2008 4:38PM

you like anime, and are therefore disqualified from making any judgments on art.

meatee @ Aug 26th 2008 8:15PM

I think the whole thing is getting waay too much attention for what it is. No matter what you think of the context of the piece, the fact is, it's just not that great of a piece. To me, it seems more like an undergrad's senior project than a "professional" art installation. The tech part of it is well done, but other than that its just mediocre.